Article published in:
Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
[Constructional Approaches to Language 18] 2015
► pp. 81–106

Constructionalization and constructional change

The role of context in the development of constructions

| Leibniz Universität Hannover
In recent constructional approaches to language change, the distinction between constructionalization and constructional changes has been made (cf. e.g. Rostila 2004; Noël 2007; Traugott & Trousdale 2013; Traugott this volume). The term constructionalization generally refers to the formation of new constructions, while diverse changes in existing constructions are labeled as constructional changes. This chapter focuses on the impact of context in the development of new constructions. It proposes to model constructionalization as a gradual accumulation of contextual restrictions followed by a structural reorganization of language material, whereby pieces of relevant contextual information are integrated into a new construction type. Two case studies and some further examples from the literature will demonstrate how the proposed model accounts for the development of new constructions from different domains of grammar.
Published online: 30 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.03smi
References

References

Askedal, J.O.
(1984) Grammatikalisierung und Auxiliarisierung im sogenannten ‚bekommen/kriegen/erhalten-Passiv‘ des Deutschen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 22, 5–47.Google Scholar
(2005) Grammatikalisierung und Persistenz im deutschen Rezipienten-Passiv mit bekommen/kriegen/erhalten . In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 211–228). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bader, M.
(2012) The German bekommen passive: A case study on frequency and grammaticality. Linguistische Berichte, 231, 249–298.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Chelliah, S.
(Eds.) (2009) The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
①
(Eds.) (2009) Context and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
①
Bybee, J.
(2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B.D. Joseph, & R.J. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Languages 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Cacoullos, R.T.
(2009) The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 university of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Symposium on Formulaic Language (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S.
(2012) Cognitive explanations, distributional evidence, and diachrony. In N. Gisborne, & W. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in cognitive linguistics. Special issue of Studies in Language, 36(3), 645–670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(1998) Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 151–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2012) The course of actualization. Language, 88, 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(1997) Grammatikalisierung: Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions. Special Volume 1: Constructions all over - case studies and theoretical implications. [www​.constructions​-online​.de]
(2008) The catalytic function of constructional restrictions in grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven, S. Skopeteas, Y.-M. Shin, Y. Nishina, & J. Helmbrecht (Eds.), Studies on grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E.
(2010) Evidentiality in German. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Paradigmatic integration: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M.
(2008) Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change, 47–79.
(2009) Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Context and constructions, 63–94. Crossref
Goldberg, A.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A., & Campbell, L.
(1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2004) On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B.
(2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In G. Trousdale, & Th. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 458–477). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N.P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization - A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E.C.
(2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A.L. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T.
(2004) Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leirbukt, O.
(1997) Untersuchungen zu bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D.
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14, 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rostila, J.
(2004) Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In F. Karlsson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian conference of linguistics. http://​www​.ling​.helsinki​.fi​/kielitiede​/20scl​/Rostila​.pdf.
Smirnova, E.
(2006) Die Entwicklung der Konstruktion würde + Infinitiv im Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stathi, K.
(2010) Is German gehören an auxiliary? The grammaticalization of the construction gehören + participle II. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 323–342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A.
(1977) Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 141–177). Austin, Texas: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C.
(2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Richard, B.D.
(2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G.
(2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E.C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2008) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. Konig (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 51–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Theory and data in diachronic construction grammar: The case of the what with construction. In N. Gisborne, & W. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in cognitive linguistics. Special issue of Studies in Language, 36(3), 576–602.Google Scholar
Wegener, H.
(1985) ‘Er bekommt widersprochen‘: Argumente für die Existenz eines Dativpassivs im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte, 96, 127–139.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
Flach, Susanne
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 46 ff. Crossref logo
Smirnova, Elena
2015. When secondary grammaticalization starts: a look from the constructional perspective. Language Sciences 47 ► pp. 215 ff. Crossref logo
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Zhan, Fangqiong
2020. The development of the Chinese expressive zhenshide: A diachronic constructional approach. Lingua 248 ► pp. 102981 ff. Crossref logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2015. The constructionalization of the Chinese cleft construction. Studies in Language 39:2 ► pp. 459 ff. Crossref logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2019. The development of the Chinese copula shì construction. Functions of Language 26:2 ► pp. 139 ff. Crossref logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2020. A study of the development of the Chinese correlative comparative construction from the perspective of constructionalization. Diachronica 37:1 ► pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.